The Determinism of Evolutionary Psychology

My recent post  has received a great deal more attention than any of my previous posts, to date. (Thank you, and welcome to all of the new readers from around the globe.) Discussion of the article has not been confined to the comments section here. There was a comment about the post by "Ben" on the Naturist-Christians-org Yahoo! Group. Since it occasioned some clarification of my position in my response, I'm re-posting both here:

In Naturist-Christians-org@yahoogroups.com, "Ben" wrote:


...I also think that evolutionary psychologists are getting a bad rap in the original post. I try to keep up with scientific literature, and I see no studies indicating simple nudity as a source of sexual stimulation in cultures where nudity is normal behavior. There is certainly a lively debate in the scientific community about why human females, unlike other genetically similar species, hide their time of fertility. That debate has led to several hypotheses being advanced including some involving humans wearing various ornamentation including jewelry and/or articles of clothing. In fact, one theory asserts that women in American culture are more likely to elicit a sexual response from men when wearing specific items of clothing than when totally naked.

 
 
My response:
 
 
Re: New Naked Truth Blog Post



Ben,


From the context of your comment, I take it that what you mean by "evolutionary psychologists are getting a bad rap " in my post, is that these scientists sometimes say things that could be considered favorable to our perspective as naturists. While that may be the case (evolutionary psychologists say all sorts of things, some of them truly bizarre, but they are certainly not monolithic in their pronouncements), this may be missing the real point of what I was saying.


Despite the fact that evolutionary psychologists sometimes say things that sound like we make "choices" or have "preferences", it is their basic perspective that all of human behavior is determined--a mechanistic system of "stimulus and response" without any real freedom of choice in a true libertarian sense. Just as many evolutionists will occasionally slip into speaking in terms of "design" when they expound upon "adaptation", evolutionary psychologists often speak in terms of "choice" (ie: using words like "preference") when what they are really doing is describing "behavior." (Sometimes they can't help themselves since, as Francis Schaeffer noted, they are constrained by having to "live in the world as God has created it." Things appear the way they are because that is the way He has made them.) If pressed though, most will admit that "free will" has nothing to do with the human interactions they are studying. Those who actually believe that some sort of free choice exists, have no evolutionary justification for that belief, and do so by borrowing from a theistic worldview. Theistic evolutionists, overlay ideas which only fit within a theistic worldview upon the scientistic view that allows for nothing but deterministic event causation of matter and energy interacting over time. Evolution + Theism = Square Peg + Round Hole. This determinism is an unavoidable corollary of the scientism that is the reining paridigm underlying all of contemporary scientific thought (at least among the scientific elites), and has recently been forcefully reiterated in Stephen Hawing's latest book. (see http://bit.ly/bnAf9g)


My larger point then, is that it is Christians, not evolutionists, who hold a worldview which has the justification to refute the idea that "seeing someone nude automatically elicits a sexual response." That idea is deterministic, and therefore fits very well within the evolutionary worldview of scientism. Scientism allows for nothing supernatural (beyond or above nature) like the soul--it denies the existence of the soul. The existence of the soul only makes sense in a theistic worldview, and it is the soul that is the source of our ability to interact freely with the world around us. Because our souls are spiritual (supernatural) rather that physical, they are not constrained by the deterministic laws of the physical world (event causation), and we can choose (our soul directing our bodies) to initiate actions in the physical realm (agent causation). Scientism denies the existence of agent causation, and reduces all human behavior to event causation--all events, including the actions of our bodies, are said to be determined by pre-existing conditions and the laws of physics and chemistry acting upon our purely material (soulless) bodies.


We as Christians and naturists know better than this by our experience (and by our intuition!) We know that the choices we make are our own. But scientistic evolutionists deny that there is any such thing as a spiritual "self" directing the actions of our bodies. This is why I give very little credence to the pontifications of evolutionary psychologists. Why should I believe the random scratchings upon paper caused by the pen held in the hand of the evolutionary psychologist which is jerking in response to the pre-existing and purposeless biochemistry of his physical body? How could they contain veridical information having anything to do with the world as it really is? I would rather stand upon what I know to be true--nudity (and by extension, naturism) does not cause an automatic sexual response!


Sorry for the length of my response, but I hope this makes my position more clear.


Blessings, Gregg Gatewood

The Biblical Naturist on the Objectification of Women

Matthew Neal, on his blog The Biblical Naturist, has posted an excellent article (the first of a two part series) about The Objectification of Women. This is an important topic which Christians tend not to think very deeply about. Strong cultural assumptions, body fear and a general discomfort with the discussion of human sexuality seems to dissuade many Christians, especially those who lean toward fundamentalism, from questioning the conventional wisdom that certain parts of women's bodies (if nude) have the power to automatically incite lust in any "normal male", and so must always be kept hidden from view from anyone but a husband or medical personnel (the Doctor Exception.)

I believe that Naturists (Nudists) have a great deal to teach the Church on this matter, as their experiences seem universally to contradict that conventional wisdom. I have some comments of my own to add, but I would urge you first to read Matthew's article before continuing to my comments below.


stringsinger commented:

Great treatment of this subject, Matthew. Can't wait to read part 2!

There's another group that Christians find themselves unwittingly in agreement with when they assume that certain parts of the female anatomy "automatically" incite lust by merely being viewed by any "normal male", as it is often phrased. That group are the evolutionary psychologists who's materialist outlook forces them to characterize all human sexuality in terms of deterministic "stimulus and response" driven by an evolutionary imperative to "perpetuate the species". Because this topic is so culturally ingrained, and thus rarely questioned, I suspect that there are, even among Christian proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory", many who are yet in agreement with the evolutionists on this point, without seeing its inconsistency with their view.

Looking at the problem from an Intelligent Design perspective I have argued that, in addition to the "expectation" factor that you have outlined here, there is a certain amount of body conditioning (or training) that occurs. It is my contention that our bodies are indeed designed to "learn" through repetition, not only physical tasks like riding a bicycle or playing a musical instrument, but in much the same way, our bodily sexual responses are conditioned by the repetition of sexual experiences. Thus the use of pornographic imagery during self stimulation, literally "trains" the body to respond to visual cues. Conversely, those who experience other naked human beings is in the context of social nudism where rules of behavior apply, are repeatedly "practicing" civil, non-sexual behavior toward others who are in their created state (naked).

Unfortunately, my original Internet forum post on the subject seems now to have been deleted. (In any event I can no longer find it). However,though the context of the original thread is missing, the post itself has been quoted in its entirety here: http://bit.ly/9joErV (reposted below)

--------------------------------------------------------

I really have to take exception to the idea that psychological theories about human nature are "basically fact." Scientific theories change all the time, especially in the softer (non-empirical) sciences like psychology. In particular, some of these theories about the differences in male and female "stimulus and response" have taken on an air of scientific urban legend in the way that they have filtered down into popular culture. It is reasonable to ask what kind of observations these theories are based on, and if the conclusions drawn from them are warranted. These ideas appear to be traceable to studies which attempted to measure the level of sexual response that male and female subjects experienced when shown sexually explicit (pornographic) images. The methodology of such studies is dubious since they do not reflect the real-life conditions of normal human relationships (and certainly have nothing to do with the way that people interact in social nudist situations.) All that one can safely and reasonably conclude from these studies is that (in general) men have a greater sexual response to porn than women do - not exactly an earth-shattering conclusion. One would have to make some pretty big assumptions though, about the nature of human beings in order to extrapolate from the actual data of this type of study to the kind of conclusions which seem now to have become part of popular consensus. It is now treated as common knowledge that the major, driving component of male sexual response is visual stimulus. But does the actual data from these studies warrant such conclusions? Only if one holds a certain reductionist view of human nature. The type of studies cited would tend to confirm the assumptions of evolutionary psychologists who's conception of human beings is purely physicalist. That is, that humans are merely physical (though highly complex) and are therefore determined -- behavior (output) is ultimately determined by stimulus (input) from outside, initiating bio-chemical changes within a human organism from the prior state that existed in that individual. This conception of humanity leaves no room for volition or true libertarian free choice -- human behavior is reduced to a merely physical/chemical chain of causal events. (Evolutionary psychology is the source of the idea that the differences in male and female human behavior are "hard wired" into us though sexual selection.)


Christians have historically held the view that humans have a dual nature, having a spiritual (soulish) component as well as a physical one (the body) and it is the soul that directs the behavior of the body. Indeed this is this view of humanity assumed by the texts of both the old and new testament scriptures. This classical Christian concept of substance-dualism brings with it a whole bunch of attendant ideas which present-day science under the reining paradigm of neo-Darwinism eschews, but which make much better sense of what we can readily observe in the world around us. Volition, free will, consciousness itself, and the possibility of life extending beyond the death of the body are all concepts that physicalism cannot (even in principle) account for. In addition to a number of good philosophical arguments for it, simple introspection about our own personal experience of an internal "self" gives us a common-sense intuition that this dualistic characterization of human nature is correct. If it is correct, and one assumes a perspective of Intelligent Design, we can reach some important conclusions from our personal experiences: God designed our bodies to be trainable to do various tasks though repetition. This is how we can learn to walk, ride a bicycle, drive a car or play a musical instrument. When we have practiced them enough, we can perform these tasks practically without thinking. Here is where all of this relates to the discussion of male and female participation in social nudism.


Let us lay aside the claim that women are "stimulated aurally" as it is less relevant. The more relevant claim is that men are more attracted to nudism because they are "wired" for visual stimulation. First of all, it only takes a little thought to dispel the idea that "visual stimulation" is a necessary component of male sexual response - if this were so, no-one would ever be able to make love in the dark. No, evolution hasn't "wired" men to respond sexually to visual stimulation, however in our modern Western culture, a great many men have "wired" themselves by the decisions they have made. Remember, I said that God has designed our bodies to be trainable through repetition? In our culture that shuns simple nudity, yet consumes massive quantities of pornography, men who repeatedly use porn to sexually stimulate themselves are literally training their bodies to respond sexually to visual images. Men who live in cultures where nudity is common, don't have a sexual reaction whenever they see an exposed female breast. Men who do not use porn and who's primary experience of other naked human beings is in the context of social nudism where rules of behavior apply, are repeatedly "practicing" civil, non-sexual behavior toward others who are in their created state (naked). Christians who criticize nudism on the basis that "male sexuality is visually driven" have (probably unwittingly) sided with the evolutionary psychologists. Their criticism would be valid if the claim were true. But it can only be true if evolutionary psychologists are correct in their physicalist conception of human nature, which would tend to undermine many (even most) of the doctrines biblical Christians hold dear.


I don't believe they are correct. I think my understanding of human nature (call it a Substance-Dualism/Intelligent Design/Body-Training view) makes a much better accounting for the-world-as-it-really-is. It also accounts for this universal testimony of practicing social nudists: far from creating occasions for heightened sexual tension and sexualized behavior, social nudism actually acts to demystify and de-sexualize the body. As such it may actually promote a healthier (even more moral) sexuality.


As for the real reasons that fewer women are attracted to nudism (at least on their own, without the encouragement of some significant male in their lives), I think it may have more to do with social conditioning. Women in our society seem to be under much greater pressure to be concerned about how they appear to others (both men and other women). In such a culture, it cannot be discounted how much clothing and make-up figure in most women's self-identity. Then, there are certain inherent differences between the sexes that are (at least in my view) God ordained. In terms of judging between the risk or payoff of a given action, women tend to be more protective (part of their nurturing nature) and men more adventurous (part of their drive for productivity).


-Gregg Gatewood